Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 January 16



File:RamDarbarOrchha.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:RamDarbarOrchha.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There's no freedom of panorama in India and this temple mural therefore enjoys copyright protection. File:RamDarbarOrchhaThumb.jpg below has been cropped from this image. Dianna (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a picture of Gods, freely used in India for many generations, please dont delete. Rajaramorcha (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know what year the image was created? -- Dianna (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't have this information, but possibly these images were created several decades ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaramorcha (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:RamDarbarOrchhaThumb.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:RamDarbarOrchhaThumb.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * There's no freedom of panorama in India and this temple mural therefore enjoys copyright protection. This image is a crop of File:RamDarbarOrchha.jpg listed above. Dianna (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is picture of Gods uses from many generations, please dont delete Rajaramorcha (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you know what year the image was created? -- Dianna (talk) 15:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I don't have this information, but possibly these images were created several decades ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajaramorcha (talk • contribs) 01:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:The eastern sea, street jan 2012.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:The eastern sea, street jan 2012.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The source at Flickr shows an Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (Cc by-ND 2.0) license, which is incompatible with the image being hosted here. Dianna (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Sabal Tongmun code.jpg.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  15:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Sabal Tongmun code.jpg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The document wasn't discovered until 1968 so the photograph can't have been made prior to 1923 as claimed in the license tag. Eeekster (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's in the Korean Wikipedia, you should see about that. I just based my claims upon the Korean file 파일: Sabaltongmoon.--Seonookim (talk) 01:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Under UK law (I can't speak for Korean) a photograph or scan of a flat document is regarded as a mere mechanical work, thus doesn't attract an additional creative copyright. It would thus be the original document date (which is safely old) that matters, not the photograph date. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I get the impression that this document was written during the lifetime of Jeon Bongjun, and probably during one of the last years of his life. Was it written by him, or was it written by someone else?
 * When other people discovered the document in 1968, they probably published it without permission from the copyright holder, so that publication was presumably illegitimate. When determining whether a work has been published, only legitimate publications are taken into account.
 * This was probably either published in the 1890s or never published with consent from the copyright holder. If published in the 1890s, then PD-1923 applies. If not published in the 1890s, then Commons:Template:PD-US-unpublished applies if the one who wrote the text died before 1943. If it is an anonymous document, then we need to wait until it is at least 120 years old, which is not yet the case. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The template now exists on this wiki as well, as of yesterday. -- Dianna (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. This appears to be an unpublished, anonymous work created in 1894. According to US law, it will pass into the public domain on January 1, 2015. Chick Bowen 04:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:"Tommy Smith Saxophonist 2006 Edinburgh.gif".gif

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The photo's source, http://www.tommy-smith.co.uk/press-media.php has a caption: "photo © Colin Robertson (photographer)." If this is so, it conflicts with the copyright-free tag placed on the file page.  Veggies  ( talk ) 05:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:"Tommy Smith Saxophonist 2006 Edinburgh.jpg".gif

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:& ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The photo's source, http://www.tommy-smith.co.uk/photos.php has a caption at the bottom of the page: "all rights reserved." There is no evidence of free-use availability. If this is so, it conflicts with the copyright-free tag placed on the file page.  Veggies  ( talk ) 05:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Serbian Army Flak carriage with two 262mm rocket tubes .jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Serbian Army Flak carriage with two 262mm rocket tubes .jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Claimed free, but with self-contradictory description: uploader initially used a non-free rationale template while claiming they had "permission to use it" (by whom?), then later claimed it was his own work. Seems to be a scan from a printed source. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Sarum College Exterior.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Sarum College Exterior.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Same image but cropped differently: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/c0.36.851.315/p851x315/467457_10150753224885452_1754216824_o.jpg Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Barrie.JPG

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Barrie.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * It is unclear whether the uploader only owns a copy of the image or whether the uploader also owns the intellectual property rights to the photo. The uploader seems to claim that he is a relative to one of the subjects of the photo, but it is possible to see a TV camera on the photo, so the copyright holder is most likely not the uploader but the TV station. Stefan2 (talk) 15:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Goddammit Stefan it's only "unclear" to you because you didn't click on it and read what I wrote about it. It's my picture, I own it, that's my father with actress Wendy Barrie, who was famous before you were born. The image has been in the public domain for five years now, and for God's sake stop emailing me before you read the file description. Spend more and better time doing your Wiki job or spend all of your time as "real world" time.--Richard Bloom
 * Delete: The copyright is owned by whomever took the photo (or whomever they were under contract to), not by the subjects of the photo or their heirs. This file is a duplicate of File:With wendybarrie.JPG, which I nominated for deletion on January 15 as lacking source information. There's some discussion between me and Mr Bloom at User talk:Diannaa/Archive 25. -- Dianna (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Chrisvalentino newwayRA set.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Chrisvalentino newwayRA set.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Available on the Internet at various places but I can only find it in smaller resolutions. Example: https://dtqcolrq1mj3j.cloudfront.net/s4906c063f1a7da1341321651.jpg Stefan2 (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Adam Kluger picture.png

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted as G7 by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Adam Kluger picture.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * The author of this photograph is not identified; this makes it difficult to determine whether the image is indeed free or to determine why this was taken. Is it a publicity photo released by the subject as an advertisement? Where did it come from? K7L (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The file has been tagged with OTRS pending. This means that the uploader claims that someone has sent an e-mail to OTRS verifying the licence status. Normally, we wait for at least a month so that there is enough time to both send and read the e-mail. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment A TinEye search is indicating this as just a cropped version of an image from a BusinessWeek article. That, along with the lack of any info identifying the author here, likely pushes this into CSD territory. K7L (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another comment User:K7L just tagged the file with . I'm removing this due to the OTRS pending, but am leaving this PUF request open in case anyone wants to discuss something more. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment This user is now removing talk page warnings. Oddly, he left the warning for Image:Van de Mosselaer Oil Kings.jpg intact and removed just the warning about the BusinessWeek photo of Kluger. K7L (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply The photo rights were purchased from the independent photographer by Adam Kluger, who has released the copyright to the public domain in his email that has now been forwarded to OTRS. The Van de Mosselaer tag I've left to remind me that I still need the copyright owner to resend a different email to me so I can forward to OTRS. I remove out of date warnings. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Adam Kluger should not be editing or creating articles about Adam Kluger or having others do so on his behalf. That would be advertising, WP:SPAM and a very serious conflict of interest. Articles have been deleted before at this and other titles because they were blatant self-promotion of Kluger or the Kluger Agency. Perhaps this should go back to the conflict of interest noticeboard if this is indeed a Kluger press release being passed off as an encyclopaedia article? K7L (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ugh, Kluger is not editing the article. I asked him for a photograph for the page, that is how acquiring photographs is done in my experience--you ask the person if they have one. What is with you? Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would add that I actually cleaned up the spam from the Agency article myself, and added this one because I saw enough press to do so. Try to AGF will you :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Approaching the subject of an article directly violates our policies on original research as well as compromising neutrality. We prefer independent, reliable secondary sources and not collusion between biographical subjects and editors. You also haven't answered the question of *who* took this photo. That's cause for concern, given that this was copied and cropped from one of the cited references for the piece, a BusinessWeek article. I'd be very surprised if BusinessWeek were to allow material recently published in its magazine to be released to the public domain... that makes no sense at all. K7L (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OTRS will respond with any additional needs for the photograph. Also, there is absolutely no rule on Wikipedia stating you can't ask someone for a photograph. You're making stuff up now. Doesn't matter anyways, it's OTRS' role, not yours, to interrogate people, lol. I question both your civility and understanding of how Wikipedia works at this point :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's OTRS' rôle to interrogate people? No, that's the Spanish Inquisition. OTRS is a help desk. K7L (talk) 23:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Lol, good to see you have a sense of humor, I was beginning to wonder about you. Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * May I ask why you are removing the BusinessWeek URL from the image description page? "You did not add this photo, and do not know where it came from" isn't going to cut it... if there's no explanation of where a photo came from, that's a strong indicator that this is indeed not a free image. K7L (talk) 23:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added the photo, and the description of it is coming via email to OTRS. You took the liberty of deciding for yourself where it came from, which is untrue. I did look at the article, and can't find the photo on there, but perhaps it is a different version. Doesn't matter though. When the OTRS email comes in, feel free to add whatever info you wish from it. Just try not to add your own hypotheses to the description as if it is an official explanation :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am able to see the photo on the Business Week article when reviewing it using the Wayback Machine. The photographer's name is Peter van Agtmael. -- Dianna (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This guy? Wow! K7L (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If OTRS doesn't pass it I'll get a different photo; the subject of the photograph has said he owns it but. I'll email the author too to see. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've heard back from van Agtmael who says that Kluger did not purchase the rights to the photo. I'm going to delete it now and add another one. Thanks for your help everybody! Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
 * Just an update: OTRS has determined that the email they received effectively releases the rights of the photograph into the public domain and they have readded the photo to the page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Castle st. Trim.jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Castle st. Trim.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Possibly unfree image is used on website: http://www.gogolfing.ie/Meath/Comeath3.htm also it is the same image (albeit with color and smaller) than one of the images on the website for the actual hotel: http://www.trimcastlehotel.com/ -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  22:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

File:Task(2).jpg

 * The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * File:Task(2).jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]).


 * Orphan image is part of a screen capture of an unknown program. Looks to be Windows based and might be InterVideo WinDVR. Screenshot is possibly not owned by uploader and uploaders only contributions left are this image and two edits to the above article -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.